On 16 Feb 2007 00:38:58 -0800, "George Dishman"
wrote:

On 15 Feb, 23:15, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 15 Feb 2007 05:33:24 -0800, "George Dishman"
wrote:
On 15 Feb, 12:48, bz wrote:
"George Dishman" wrote oups.com:
On 14 Feb, 23:29, bz wrote:
HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote

... My point is that I doubt the technique
has been tried because the velocity due to the
variable diameter would hide any overall motion
due to a planet.

That is probably true in most cases, although you can't be sure that the
observed velocity figures are really due to huff puffing and not to orbital
movement.

That's what I just said Henry, it would be hard
to tell the difference so I doubt the technique
has been applied.

And why don't those nearby systems with planets show Wilson Variability
in brightness along with the doppler shift and wobble that they
display?

Similarly, why don't all spectroscopic binaries
show extreme variability?

That is a very good question. I think it has been asked of Henri before.

answered.

In that case which non-variable spectroscopic
binaries have you analysed and what wa the
predicted light curve?

George, like I said, the biggest problem for me is to find both velocity and
brightness curves for the same star.
Brightness curves for near circular orbits are pretty well the same so all I
need is the magnitude change and maximum velocity.

If you can find some examples for me I will try to match them.

Yes, that's why I said "the value". Basically, he
can chose k in the earlier equation as any arbitrary
function of the local density but then has to stick
with it, and probably the form of that equation would
be dictated by the physics any way, probably
proportional to the density on the assumption that
each encounter with a particle was independent, leaving
only a simple constant to be determined empirically.

There appears to be another factor contributing to light speed unification
other than plain space density of matter.
Maybe this is related to the gravity field of the stars involved. I have no
explanation as yet.

Gravity would slightly couteract the speed unification
effect but it is a second order effect so increases the
unification distance by about one part in ten thousand
typically, completely irrelevant as you don't know the
distance to within an order of magnitude yet.

I'm not trying to explain it at this stage. I just want to find a consistent
pattern. Unification distance appears to be definitely related to orbit period.

If the speeds unify so fast on nearby stars (including Cepheids) that we do
not see differences in aberation and stellar position for slow vs fast
photons, then the speeds would unify too fast for brightness variation to
be significant.

I think aberation and stellar position effects are
going to be too small to be noticeable even with
significant brightness variations, but the apparent
Doppler variations would then imply non-Keplerian
orbits. After all, once the fast photons catch the
slow ones, the Doppler goes to infinity as would
the inferred orbital speed ;-) Very rapid extinction
is the only way round that.

...not necessarily so 'rapid'.

Well 'rapid' is subjective. What I mean is very
much less than the parallax distance to the system.

for small period orbits, yes...but not so much for orbits over about a year.

However the brightness is predicted to go to
infinity at the critical distance when the first double image would occur.
Since this doesn't seem to happen and multiple images are not commonly
observed, I am prepared to accept that exinction rates are normally fairly
high.

That's all I meant. Typically it must be no more
than a fraction of a light year.

No. It doesn't work like that. Something makes it period dependent. After all,
you cannot unify light with other light that hasn't yet been emitted.

George